Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Dr. Gill,

I should be careful when I step away (or get led away – courtesy of “chowk staff” (and their cohorts (hope YOU are not one of my “behind-the-scene” shady judges, if so, I am going to come around to “service” you presently!))).

What the heck is this – one week away from this site and you are ready to go put the bleep on the veep!

Gill sahib, hoash mein ayeeye – kuchh hone-wone ka nahin hai!

Yeh sub aapka vaham hai ya wishful thinking!

It is virtually impossible to prove that a person who revealed a CIA operative’s name was aware that the operative was “covert” and that such name-leaking would be “against the law”– therefore the threshold for indictment is quite unlikely to be crossed!

I have seen excitable hens act less excitable than you seem to be in this article – going so much ga-ga over gullible gossip!

Perhaps you need to switch to reading Washington Times and put the Post into the compost!

The above are my personal views, of course – I have no way of predicting the future. I base my guess on the fact that Bush’s thinking has always remained steady – as a rock! He always supports his people – and gives them the benefit of doubt – unless something clear-cut in the nature of proof shows up!

But one must marvel at the American system – no matter which way this camel turns –NOBODY can ever consider himself above the law!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Dr, Gill...
Thanks for posting this. I hope that Rove and Libby are indicted. It would only be sweet justice. Hubris before the fall. An indictment alone would be enough put an end to their sordid Washington careers. Cheney and Rice might well get burnt in the process. Those of us who remember Watergate will understand that a few apparently tenuous charges against aides and confidants can suddenly become cause for impeachment of a president. That may be too much to hope for in this case, but if a few of Dubya`s closest are outed in disgrace that would be some vindication for those of who opposed - still oppose - the unprovoked Iraq invasion and continuing bloody occupation.
mirmir

Re#2 MirMir

Dear MirMir,

Somehow your nickname reminds me of this old Lata (?) song:

“Mur-mur ke na dekh – mur-mur ke
Mur-mur ke na dekh – mur-mur ke
Jindganee ke safar mein
Tu akela hi nahin hai
Hum bhi tere sung mein hain….”

I have a feeling that you probably understand the words – anyone who is able to read Ghalib (I wish (sincerely) I had been able to) ought to understand a few of those words – or some volunteer here (Ana?) can perhaps translate it for you – perhaps even into Spanish – if not for any good purpose then at least to show-off!

By the same token, I hope you understood what I wrote to the Gillster in #1. Let me repeat:

“Gill sahib, hoash mein ayeeye – kuchh hone-wone ka nahin hai!
Yeh sub aapka vaham hai ya wishful thinking!”

If you did not understand – let me do a simple translation:

“Wake up little darling – wake-up! Stop the day-dreaming!”

Man, you are blinded with your deep “love” for our president. There were some really GOOD reasons which prompted US intervention into the Middle East! It was strictly in our national interest, and also in the interest of those Iraqis who value freedom – you certainly don’t seem to! The Gillster lets his passions rule his logic on issues related to this administration and sends common sense away to graze grass like a fat and lazy buffalo. You, the hot-blooded Mexicano – and a poet and an activist to boot – that ultimate lethal combination – are not to be left far behind!

I wonder if it is true what they say – that behind every such activist – if only one were to scratch a bit – an old commie sympathizer lurks. You guys make me scratch my head and say – wonders will never cease! The ultimate heart-warmer for the fake liberal crowds occupying every little nook and crevice of this rotten chowk furniture – hiding and hiding like khatmals and waiting for an opportunity to sneak up and do some serious damage – yet such extreme is that chicken-like valor and so totally incapable they are of facing the light of the day!

And while you take a pause from lecturing us regarding justice, when are you going to stop pumping those undocumented millions through our borders? Why can’t your compatriots come in with legal papers like everybody else – even the desi crowds? What the heck are you guys trying to do – swamp the whole land so the legals get kicked out, too?

Sincerely,
Beej.

{``...This whole issue emerged from the administration’s efforts to build a strong case for war against Iraq. The fundamental reason for invading Iraq was the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (wmds), which Iraq denied all along. The United Nations weapon inspectors had failed to uncover any such weapons in Iraq in spite of their concerted and patient efforts. The White House did not buy the UN’s search results and defended its stance by assertions, which subsequently were proved wrong. ...}

George W. Bush saw an increase in his poll ratings coming. People love a “war” president, at least until they’ve lived through a real war. He relished the opportunity to put on a flight suit and land on a real U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, ostensibly to rally the troops, but more importantly to rally the gullible American public.

Like almost all great public spectacles, the war against Iraq was commenced on a fraud, played out as a farce, and now threatens to end in abject tragedy. Just as it should.

...SR

re: Mohammad Gill

There is a legal principle called ``sovereign immunity``, which will prevent Vice-President Chenny and anyone associated, with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.

The idea is a simple one and it was designed to protect the government and its officals from prosecution. The idea was to create an immunity, which would allow the government officals to conduct the affairs of the state, as they thought best, without the fear of legal accountibility.

In other words, Chenny et al have to agree to be charged, with a crime before they can be charged with a crime and tried under the due process of the law. The legalism of sovereign immunity says that the state must allow itself to charged, with a crime and since the state - Bush adminisration, will never agree to this proposition, no charges can be brought against any offical of the White House in pursuance of their offical duties.

Chenny et al, will never be implicated or tired in a court of law let alone being punished for an illegal act.

The most probable course seems to be that Bush will pardon Chenny`s conduct and once that happens, there will be no grounds to charge him, with any misdemeanor.

Ciao

Re: # 5
I believe that a review of the Watergate saga wouldn`t support this contention. Didn`t we see several Nixon aides (government officials) who were involved in this scandal jailed? Even Bush and Cheney aren`t exempt from charge and prosecution for crimes committed in office, but it would be done by Congress, not by the courts.
mirmir

Re: # 5
There is a brief but succinct explanation of ``Sovereign Immunity`` at this site: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm.
As I understand it, the principle applies to the government, not to individuals (no matter how powerful they might be). Check with an attorney to be sure. mirmir

ferozk:

If the legal principle of sovereign immunity as you`ve defined exists for protecting a government and its officials against misconduct and legal excesses, what was the purpose of starting this probe? I doubt if the U.S. government and its officials are beyond the reach of law otherwise how they can be held accountable.

I am not expert in legal matters but the sovereign immuinity principle as you`ve described doesn`t seem to make sense.

A president can pardon any official who might be indicted; that is the power that he has. But such an action, if taken by President Bush, will further erode the credibility of his administration. But such thoughts are still premature. The Special Prosecutor might not indict anyone.

President Ford had pardoned President Nixon after he was impeached in the Watergate cover up and resigned.

Mohammad Gill

The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. Was the decision to go to war right or wrong? The entire USA is talking about it now. The homes, offices, and bars are abuzz with competing arguments and people are coming to a conclusion that somehow mistakes were made and maybe the bush admin is incapable of correcting those mistakes. The outing of Valerie Plame was part of the effort to cover up the administration’s embarrassment over the WMD nonsense.

I am one of those who supported the war. Not because I believed in the WMD hoax or the democracy BS. Anyone who has learned a little about realpolitik from the pros knows how to pull the wool over eyes. The Bush admin did the same thing but never had the guts to plant some WMD to justify its apparent reason for war. Now they are taking a beating about the WMD hoax.

There were two very important reasons for the US to go this war. First, it was clear that the Sanctions that destabilized and weakened Iraq, were collapsing and it appeared that they will not remain tenable for a long time.

But the second and the most important reason, the US admin never came out and made it in public, was the most compelling one for people who knew the stakes in Iraq. The problem was that this reason alone would not have met public approval that the urgency of the US action required.

A little background first.
Iraq and Saddam after the 1991 war were slowly crumbling. The sanctions were making it difficult for the Saddam regime to keep a firm control over the government in Iraq and it was quite clear to the US admin in 1998 that some way had to be found to stabilize Iraq. But the problem was Saddam Hussein and there was no way that the US public would have accepted stabilizing of the Saddam government even in 1998.

While all this was still at the diplomatic level, the bin Laden group had some great successes in the ME. That created another set of problems for the US and Europeans. A terrorist group in isolation can be dealt with but if that group happens to have protection from some state, dealing with it becomes extremely difficult. It was feared that since Saddam is weakening with every passing day and it was constantly in conflict with Saudi Arabia, he would end up making a deal with Anti Saudi terrorist led by Bin Laden to regain lost prestige and political stability. Once the terrorist had a state for support around Levant, both Saudi and Israeli would be under immediate threat.

European also agreed with the US but they decided to stabilize the Saddam regime by pressing to remove sanctions. Europeans did not believe that a regime change in Iraq was possible from the outside. Bill Clinton did make a decision to formulate some effort to change the Saddam regime.

While the European wanted to remove sanctions to stabilize Iraq, the US wanted him out first, install a new regime, and then provide support for stability. Clinton got caught up in the stained dress and in Bosnia and the sanctions in Iraq continued to erode the Iraq government stability.

The Bush admin knew that the stained dress had disabled the Clinton admin and it was unable to do anything about Terrorism and Iraq. It became Bush’s task number one to find a way to get to Iraq as soon as possible.

911 provided that opportunity.

Now it was just a matter of selling the war against Iraq to the US public. That is where the US admin bungled. Instead of trying to invent the reason for the war, they should have made a better attempt in linking Iraq with the terrorism. I can understand the admin’s dilemma. This linkage was impossible in the absence of any hard links between Iraq and Bin Laden, there was no way the US public would have bought a war based on some postulations how real they may be for the US admin. Though, this theme was softly peddled to the US Public.

On top of all that the admin miscalculated in Iraq. The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. The Bush admin is having difficulty in providing justification to its continued stay in Iraq.

The Dems in the CIA and in the bureaucracy want a revenge for the destruction and impeachment of Clinton Admin by the Republicans.
Irony: the war in Iraq has also destabilized the Bush Admin.
The charade continues and will most like bring down some members of the admin.


mirmir, Feroz
Sovereign Immunity does not apply. The POTUS cannot be indicted, but the VP can be.

I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh.

Re: # 5, # 8 and # 9

One great concept that the Founders of the U.S. wanted to make perfectly clear: No citizen is above the law, not even the president himself who remains accountable for (among other things) acts that might constitute a violation of Federal criminal law. The very limited and specific immunity that he enjoys is immunity for prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. I can`t believe that any court would consider a criminal act by the president to be ``in his official capacity.`` The ``Sovereign Immunity`` principle deals with SUITS brought against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not suits or charges against individual officials of the government.

Watergate Convictions:

•one presidential resignation
•one vice-presidential resignation
•40 government officials indicted or jailed
•H.R. Haldeman & John Erlichman (White House staff) resigned 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Dean (White House legal counsel) sacked 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President(CREEP) jailed
•Howard Hunt and G.Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed
•Charles Colson, special counsel to the President jailed
•James McCord (Security Director of CREEP) jailed

Precedent for Immunizing Official, Presidential Acts -- BUT NO OTHERS.
The actual text of the Constitution does not grant immunity to a president, but the Supreme Court has declared that a president is absolutely immune from DAMAGES LIABILITY for his OFFICIAL, presidential acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). There is, however, no precedent for granting immunity to a president for alleged acts that
(1) cannot be official, presidential acts because they were committed before....election to the presidency,
(2) would not be official, presidential acts even if committed as alleged....after inauguration,
(3) would constitute an abuse of official power by a sitting president, and
(4) may constitute a violation of Federal criminal law.

mirmir

Re: # 8

Dear Mohammad Gill Sahib,

If my memory serves me, I believe President Nixon was not impeached by Congress in the watergate cover. He resigned under the threat of impeachment and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Respectfully submitted,

BBA

Mr. behram:

You`re right. The impeachment was in progress and was predominantly against Nixon. Seeing the trend, he resigned. The day of the impeachment, I was in the U.S. on vacation and was flying out the same day.

Mohammad Gill

#11 Mirmir

``Watergate Convictions: •one vice-presidential resignation ``

Minor correction:

Vice President Spiro Agnew`s resignation was not related to Watergate. He had taken some bribes while he was governor of Maryland and his indictment came while he was vice-president. Nixon took that as an opportunity to let him go so that he can appoint Ford as his vice-president. His logic was that people will not dare to impeach and remove him because of very low expectations from Ford.

The country survived. It only proves that if the institutions are strong and people are evolved, presidents can come and go and republics survive.

Re: # 14
Pardesi...
You are absolutely correct in this. Thanks for the correction.
mirmir

Re: # 9 HP {``...The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. ... somehow mistakes were made... bush admin is incapable of correcting... I am one of those who supported the war. ...``}

A friend of mine sums it up best. He begins with mocking the monkey trial that started in Iraq last week.

What gives this court the authority to try me, asks Saddam Hussain? Good question, my friend comments. The answer is plain: only the force of U.S. arms...that is to say, only the brute power of an invading army. ``I am the only lawful president of Iraq,`` he quotes Saddam, ``not a puppet put in by the Americans.`` Again, Saddam has a point. He stole the job all by himself. Not as the puppet of some foreign invader. ``How dare you pass judgment on me,`` he further quotes the former Iraqi dictator.

It is merely the latest in a long chain of blunders, my wise friend adds.

We are witnessing something remarkable in modern world history. A Great Power is rolling over. There is hardly an error chronicled in any history of imperial wars, he claims, that American forces have not committed in Iraq.

One of the pleasures of being the world’s super-power, I agree with my historian friend, is that you get to cut off the heads of your enemies, and you never have to say you’re sorry. Helagu Khan was a master at it. He took Baghdad the proper way. Nobody asked him any questions afterwards. Caesar, Ghenghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Stalin...all conquerors made a point of punishing those who stood against them. But the trial of Saddam Hussain is a first. It is the first time the former ruler of a conquered nation has gone on television...so that he may rally his people against the invader!

U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear. Then at least he would not be on television pointing out the obvious to his compatriots; he is only on trial because the country was over-run by foreign troops.

Once again, according to my learned friend, history’s most incompetent empire is a victim of its own humbug.

It may be true that many Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussain because he ruined their lives. He started two disastrous wars, against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis were killed and wounded. The country’s oil wealth was spent on weapons. In the 1990s, U.N. sanctions impoverished the country. Iraqis should have been living like the Saudis but instead, they had the standard of living of Sudan. As U.S. tanks rolled in Baghdad, they hoped their lives would now get better. Instead they got even worse. Imagine that… , the Anglo-Saxon imperial overlords have miraculously accomplished what seemed impossible when the war began; they have made Saddam’s rule seem to many Iraqis like the “good old days.”

The billions supposedly spent by the U.S. - much of it Iraqi oil money - produced few benefits. The country became a feeding trough for politically well-connected U.S. companies and individuals. ...Even the corruption desensitised Iraqis were shocked to find that almost the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget of the defense ministry had disappeared...Much of the Iraqi government exists only on paper. It is more of a racket than an administration. Its officials turn up only on payday. Elaborate bureaucratic procedures exist simply so that a bribe has to be paid to avoid them.

My wise friend goes on to assert that the U.S. actions in Iraq are not an “error” from a historical perspective. They are a necessity. Every great empire must extinguish itself somehow. Otherwise, we would still be ruled by Assyrians or Romans or Mongols. What Anglo-American forces are doing is merely a form of “suicidal statecraft,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski has suggested; that’s it, it is a way of cutting their own heads off.

Somehow, I agree with my wise friend. We are witness to a remarkable turning point in modern history. The chickens are coming home. America was waiting for the cows to come home. They didn`t, instead the chickens did.

...SR